Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

If a track is recorded with a split mic feed into two SoundDevices boxes, one set for 16/44, one set for 24/96 then things could get interesting because you could set up an A/B/C test:

 

Record performance:

A=16/44 playback

B=24/96 playback

C=MQA Encoded 24/96 track playback from Spence

 

Then test:  

How close does C sound in relation to B?

How close does C sound in relation to A?

 

If Siau's 2016 note is correct then C should sound closer to B.  

 

If B and C are undifferentiated from an audible standpoint then the MQA encoder is pretty "clean" in terms of no audible loss (which I think is one of the claims MQA is making.)

 

On my files for Spence to encode I could possibly find one of our mic split experiments where we set the second SoundDevices to 16/44 (we typically do two boxes and daisy chain for redundancy reasons.)

 

Might make for an interesting experiment.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Think of all the DRM that has sprouted up in their phones and laptops. Bob Stuart and the audio  press may be able to sucker boomers, gen x is too cynical they can sense a con a mile away. Millennials who can afford audio know better than to even listen to boomers.

 

My guess is that if MQA is in their hardware and streaming services, they may not care about any DRM if they get the music on their phones with a big library for a reasonable price.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Yes, but, isn't that true DRM or not? It would be better for the general public if the prevalent platform would not be DRM infected.

 

That said,  my fear is not streaming - I don't do streaming other than in the car, where I am yelling at the kids, swearing at other drivers and barely controlling the road rage... so do not care about SQ, etc... just want to tame the beast...

SQ is the last of my concerns and as log as the file plays do not care how. My guess is that this is where most people live.

 

BUT 

 

The stated intent is MQA everywhere. Now I feel compelled to fight it will all my heart - In fact I do believe that discussing the the technical minutia is pointless - this is an idea that is rotten in principle. A transparent attempt to take away consumer rights. Whether it sounds good, OK or  bad is immaterial . The  intent is rotten at the core.  No slight intended against lee - I enjoy his site even if I disagree with the non-stop MQA coverage.  I wish there wasn't such thing as this blatant anti-consumer effort.  But, that said, great site, lee.

 

v

 

Still researching but my current understanding is that DRM isn’t being used on MQA 

files presently so I am not sure how any consumer freedoms are being harmed.

 

And still no one has clearly explained a revenue model from DRM, which is one reason I suspect its not a factor in the label support.

 

Glad you like the site.

Link to comment

Is this thread of 263 pages sponsored by MQA, arf ?

If You Got Ears, You Gotta ListenCaptain Beefheart

 

MacMini 2018, 4xi3 3.6GHz, SSD, 20Gb, macOS Sonoma > Audirvana Origin >

Wyred DAC2 DSD Special Edition > Proceed AMP2 > Focal Cobalt 826 Signature Series >

Audirvana Remote > iPhone 13

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

 

The DRM mechanism is present in all MQA files. Strong encryption is used to encode the "hi res" part of the data (the 24-48 KHz part stored in the lowest 8 or so  bits of each sample.) Currently the upper bits ( 0-24 KHz, 15-17 bits) are unencrypted, but the format allows for encrypting most of the upper bits as well. As I've explained to you before, I believe it'll play out the same as HDCP has done for the HDMI standard. No enforcement of rights in the initial stages until the format becomes ubiquitous, then increasing enforcement. 

 

As for revenue stream, it's not so much about revenue. It's about control. The labels see their loss of revenue as being caused by a loss of control. They want the control back.

 

Don, 

 

I understand that but isn’t it unfair to criticize MQA for encryption when that is a key part of the folding?  That is a bit like saying we don’t like DSD because it is sigma-delta modulation.

 

And your comment about control doesn’t work because it doesn’t explain where revenue growth happens.

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Its important to recognize that this ringing isn't a given. There's the theoretical possibility of ringing because of the steepness of the AAF, but to get ringing in practice you need to have frequency content at the ringing frequency in the material to kick it off. Bells need to be struck in order to ring and ring-y filters need to be struck with the right frequency.

 

The upshot is - if there's no 96kHz content in the recording there will be no ringing evident.

 

I don’t believe this is how it works.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...